I, also, have no forbidden foods, but then I never really had a problem with binging to excess on any one food, so it's hard for me to relate. But such restrictions can be used as a method for dealing with cravings.

I should post a list of curbing craving strategies, but one of them absolutely is 'avoidance'. Avoiding putting yourself in situations or engaging in behaviors that contribute to making bad choices. Having rules like "no buffets", "no cookies", or "no open candy dishes" are examples of this strategy.

A related strategy is 'substitution', doing something else when the craving occurs. Eating a healthy food instead, chewing gum, shop for clothes.

These are very valid and useful strategies, however there are downsides to these two strategies.

Overuse of avoidance can impair living a life you'd like to (e.g. if you had a strict rule about eating every 2 hours and never eating out, it might limit you having a healthy-for-you social life or make you rebellious by making it difficult to come to peace with your diet choices).

Overuse of substitution, especially when the craving is emotional just reinforces the craving: you get a craving and then you reward yourself by indulging in something pleasurable (shopping instead of eating, say). You never learn to just be with the craving and feel your feelings.

When you make yourself eat some of your forbidden foods, you are actually using an advanced, and very valid, strategy for handling cravings -- teaching yourself how to live with the urge in moderation. When done well, this is very powerful -- you learn to handle problem food/situations rather than avoid them and this means you are better able to keep to your behavior change when you are confronted with situations beyond your control. The downside of this is that if done poorly, you could slide back in to bad behaviors. The key is knowing yourself and being honest with yourself.

This discussion actually reminds me of Cesar Millan, the dog whisperer. He has this thing he does when he's trying to rid a dog of a fixation or obsession: basically just making the dog lie down and stay calm in very close proximity to the object of its obsession. The dog will lie there and because it can't chase the cat/chicken/hose, it looks away and practices avoidance--the dog will just refuse even to look at the temptation. Cesar is pleased that the dog is practicing avoidance, but keeps on with the exercises until the dog moves beyond avoidance into just being able to be around cats/chickens/hoses without freaking out, ie, into calm acceptance.

I think that makes sense for long-term healthy eating goals--or at least, for MY long-term healthy eating goals. I want to be able to eat like a regular, healthy, balanced human being without any fixations. I have to be careful not to overdo it, or to eat fattening things too often, but I think donuts or pasta or whatever can be part of a balanced diet. The trick, I think, is to eat really well and really healthily most of the time. That way if I feel like going out to dinner and getting red meat or cheese, or getting a kouign aman (best pastry ever!) from my local patisserie, I can, without having to worry that my life is ruined or that I'm a failure or that, secretly, I DESERVE to be fat. I want to be a balanced eater, healthy physically and psychologically.

I have a moderate but persistant binge history. Not on a particular food but on a cascading list of foods starting with triggers.

I do still have some forbidden foods...I guess. I should say I have some foods that SHOULD be avoided absolutely. Whipped cream I have no control. But ....well whipped cream isnt that hard to avoid either. Homemade cookies are another.....welll....2 more months til the holidays. Plan B C and D for them.

But these 3 are foods that I find too painful to give up. They are the foods that avoidance can trigger a binge just as much as having them. (I want pizza and deny myself pizza and eat an entire loaf of whole grain bread with hummus and STILL want freaking pizza) I have varying success. All are best done outside the home. Pizza I have been very successful at because I go to my favorite pizza place once a week which happens to be a "by the slice" place so it is easy to get one slice. I find that inferior pizza I still binge on. Ice cream and chocolate I have at times been able to have in the house and at times I struggle. Chocolate oddly enough is less of a problem. Even a bad chocolate binge tends to be in the 2-300 calorie range and I am faced with all my little wrappers. (I only buy the individually wrapped bite size dark chocolates) Ice cream I have less failure on, but when I do fail it tends to be monumental. But I keep on battling. One demon at a time. One strategy at a time.

I dont tend to binge on the foods I truly love. Dark chocolate is savored, snickers (ick) are devoured. Good pizza is enjoyed, cheap pizza is inhaled.

I think a big part of weight management IS failure. I used to work for 3M. They had a philosophy that if you didnt fail occasionally then you werent really growing. I could sit back and deny deny deny my demons or each failure I could say "I suck" and feed my demons or I can add to my arsenal of knowledge of how to fight and how to reprogram and how to make weight management more reflexive response and less deliberate response. Failure is opportunity.

This time around (since I'm back on track and all in a general way, not only for a day or two), I don't have any 'forbidden foods', precisely for that reason. I was very worried about that at first, thinking I'd fail, but surprisingly, it works for me, and better than if I were 'on a specific plan'. I do have pizza or chocolate occasionally, knowing it's not forbidden; I just have less of it (no 1-lb pizza for j00 alone, K!), and, well, it works. I don't crave it, and I'm able to keep control, sort of. I really want to learn eating with moderation, and good relationships with food--not guilt, shame, whatever (the only moral value food has is the moral value I give it, right?). And if I lose uber-slowly, then so be it, it's not a race after all, it's a lifestyle.

'Course, it's really not easy to get into that mindset. Somehow, it looks to me like society, the media etc. 'program' us to go the all-or-nothing way. Am I paranoid?: ?:

I've found that emphasizing quality rather than quantity helps too. I buy expensive, high quality dark chocolate that I want to savor, rather than shovel down my throat. If I want ice cream, there's a bakery in town that makes the most amazing stuff in the most incredible flavors (passionfruit! bittersweet chocolate! cassis!) and the servings are perfect: one small scoop (around a half cup. Yay!). The flavors are so intense and the quality so high that I really, really enjoy my one small scoop and feel satisfied when I've finished it. If I eat something calorific I want it to be really, really worth the calories.

So I was thinking last night about the "never gain a single pound back" and is that really my goal? I am in an intentional weight loss hiatus for another month. Then I hope to lose probably 5-10 more lbs.

But I'd also like to gain some muscle so maybe less

Anyway. Right now I am 37 and marathoning. I think ~120 while marathoning (or at least distance running even if I go down to 1/2s) will be maintainable. And frankly being lighter is just easier on the body when running this much.

But what if I get to ....67... and I decide that I am DONE with this marathon/HTC crap. That my body just doesnt want to run 40 miles a week or more. You know, I may be ok with gaining back a few pounds at that point. I will always exercise, always be active. But if I get to the point where the desire for distance running is gone, then I wont be replacing that calorie burn with other exercise. While I am sure my appetite would decrease some, if it became painfully restrictive to maintain 120, I think I would be ok with maintaining 130-135 at that point in my life. Its still healthy, its still ok.

And I think I am young enough right now that 120 would look good on me, I am not sure if I think 120 would look as good at 67. Sometimes I think too thin is very aging.

Ahhh who knows... I am still playing around with my fantasy (which started before I lost weight) of being a independant (not with a gym) personal trainer/running coach for the overweight and new runners. Maybe by the time I am 67 I'll be running 40 mpw with clients!

This is my argument with WW. The high end of the goal range for someone my height (5'4" when I really try!) is 140. Losing I got to 160, and looked older than my age (I'm 62) and decided that there was nooo way I was going lower. At the time I was running probably 20+ miles a week, and doing 5K races, and weight training (still doing that, it's the running I've quit due to my knee problems) and frankly I looked good. It's where I'm aiming to get back to. I may never be a WW Lifetime member unless I get a doc's note that this is my goal weight, but it's one that works for me.

But off topic. I find that I too do much better with a good quality of whatever I'm craving, and eating it outside the home is much safer. Even though I ate stuff I seldom eat at the State Fair earlier this week, it was good quality stuff, and not the fried dough stuff or supersweet stuff (though mostly I don't even crave that). It was "real" food - crab cakes, scallops, and a "to die for" homemade tamale with homemade rice and beans.

I can see how that is frustrating, although I also think this is is reasonable compromise for WW. You should be seeing your doctor from time to time, every few years, say. Just ask for a note next time you go.

The WW range is based on standard BMI range, which does have its flaws, but is likely appropriate for about 90% of people. I do think they made the right decision to not allow folks to attend if they are below the lower range without a doctor's note so as to avoid supporting eating disorders. Since they offer free attendance when you make lifetime, having the upper end be too high will allow people to game the system (lose 10 pounds, set it as goal and then attend free for the support to lose the other 100 lbs). That would make it hard to be able to pay their staff researchers, nutritionists, web designers, and rent at building locations. Since a Dr's note is easy to get, I think this is a reasonable trade-off.

As a cancer survivor I would hope that everyone is getting a pap smear once a year - even after menopause or a hysterectomy - and a physical breast exam every year - unless you are of age in your state/province to get a mammogram. Early detection is crutial.

Not to forget EZ or any other man, I believe a prostate check is just as important.

Take the time - don't worry about the embarassment - it could save your life.

I have to say, I've just gotten health insurance for the first time in two years and I am unreasonably excited about going to the doctor and getting a pap smear and a general check up. Hooray health insurance! It's been more than 3 years since I had a pap smear and I want to know that everything is aok. I had conjunctivitis last year and after trying all the over-the-counter options to no avail, I finally had to go to the college health center and beg for samples from the kind nurses. They gave them to me, but really, it shouldn't have to come to that.

(Tangent: right before my last insurance ended I went to the gyno for all the tests because I knew it would be a while before I had insurance again. I submitted to the exam, she took all the swabs, etc, etc. A few days later, literally minutes before we climb into our moving truck to drive 3000 miles to our new home, the doctor's office calls me to tell me that they've buggered up my sample and can't do the tests on it and could I please come in to have another exam. I couldn't, of course, so its been ages and ages since I was given a clean bill of health.....Grrrr!)

Oh, I do go to the doctor regularly. But usually it's the GYN, and she's one of those super-skinny, never had an extra ounce people who once told me "just cut out a couple slices of bread a day" and I'd lose weight..... I will get a note someday when it's important enough, I guess. And I agree that the WW goals do work well for most of their clients. They now emphasize the initial 10% loss too. I was more than likely cranky the day I wrote that post.